Mark Scheme (WBS03/01) (Results) Pearson Edexcel International Advanced Level in Business Studies. Unit 3: Strategic Business Decisions

Transcription

1 Scheme (WBS03/01) (Results) Pearson Edexcel International Advanced Level in Business Studies Unit 3: Strategic Business Decisions

2 Edexcel and BTEC Qualifications Edexcel and BTEC qualifications come from Pearson, the world s leading learning company. We provide a wide range of qualifications including academic, vocational, occupational and specific programmes for employers. For further information, please visit our website at Our website subject pages hold useful resources, support material and live feeds from our subject advisors giving you access to a portal of information. If you have any subject specific questions about this specification that require the help of a subject specialist, you may find our Ask The Expert service helpful. Pearson: helping people progress, everywhere Our aim is to help everyone progress in their lives through education. We believe in every kind of learning, for all kinds of people, wherever they are in the world. We ve been involved in education for over 150 years, and by working across 70 countries, in 100 languages, we have built an international reputation for our commitment to high standards and raising achievement through innovation in education. Find out more about how we can help you and your students at: Summer 2014 Publications Code IA All the material in this publication is copyright Pearson Education Ltd 2014

3 Section A: Data response Question Number Question 1 (a) What is meant by the term brand? (Evidence B, line 6) Answer 2 marks Knowledge up to 2 marks: A name, symbol or logo (1) that identifies/differentiates the product/business in the eyes of the consumer. (1) mark for partial or vague definition but a valid example lifts to 2 marks. Any other suitable alternative.

4 Question Number Question 1 (b) What is meant by the term mergers? (Evidence B, line 9) Answer 2 marks Knowledge up to 2 marks: A mutual agreement (1) between the managements and shareholders of two companies to bring both organisations together (1) mark for partial or vague definition but a valid example lifts to 2 marks. Any other suitable alternative.

5 Question Number Question 2 Explain how Kraft s management team could have used a SWOT analysis of Cadbury before deciding to take it over. Answer 6 marks (Knowledge 2, Application 2, Analysis 2) Knowledge/understanding: up to 2 marks are available for what is meant by a SWOT e.g. Kraft would compare the Strengths against the Weaknesses and the Opportunities against the Threats (1) this would enable them to decide whether it was worthwhile to take over Cadbury (1) Application: up to 2 marks are available for contextualised answers that illustrate the elements of SWOT with regard to Cadbury e.g. Cadbury s Strengths, such as its history, heritage, well known brands, its dominance in the confectionery market (1); its Opportunities such as growth in Asian markets (1) Analysis: up to 2 marks are available for the consequences of caarrying out a SWOT analysis e.g. Kraft would weigh up internal/external factors (1) and would use it to consider any net benefits they may gain from the takeover (1)

6 Question Number Question 3 Analyse why the takeover of Cadbury might have led to a culture clash. (Evidence B) Answer 8 marks (Knowledge 2, Application 2, Analysis 4) Knowledge/understanding: up to 2 marks are available for showing understanding of what is meant by culture clash e.g. Kraft, being a large multinational conglomerate, used to taking over and merging with other businesses could completely overwhelm Cadbury s culture (1) the US culture as exhibited by Kraft could clash with the Britishness of Cadbury s (1) 1-2 Application: up to 2 marks are available for contextualised answers, e.g. For example, Cadbury s corporate culture is based on historical values/being socially aware/supporting the aims and principles of Fairtrade (1) whereas Kraft s corporate culture is one based on profit driven mergers and demergers/historically holding the values of the tobacco industry (1) 1-2 Analysis: Candidate analyses using reasons/causes/ consequences/costs of what might have led to a culture clash. e.g Cadbury s culture is values led, Kraft is profit-driven (1) this may lead to clashes when making strategic decisions (1) all the positive associations of Cadbury s history may count for nothing (1) as Kraft just wants Cadbury s business/distribution and once they have that, it will run Cadbury s as it does its other brands/products (1) 1-4

7 Question Number Question 4 Assess the extent to which the takeover of Cadury has contributed to Kraft s growth in the UK. (Evidence A & D) 10 marks Level Descriptor Possible content Knowledge/understanding of basic terms Application: basic points developed to show awareness of the growth in UK business achieved by Kraft Analysis in context must be present, i.e. the extent to which UK growth has been achieved by taking over Cadbury s N.B. if analysis is not in context, limit to Level Evaluation must be present and in context, i.e. a candidate balances their answer. N.B. if evaluation is not in context, limit to Level 3. For example, what is meant by company growth e.g. the expansion of a business through increased sales/market share/ distribution/product range/ customer base etc For example, Kraft s inorganic growth is designed to support increased market share as shown by figures in Evidence D e.g share of chocolate market increased from 37.1% to 37.5% For example, Kraft s chocolate business generates two-thirds of its UK turnover since taking over Cadbury For example, that Cadbury s is giving Kraft growth in the UK faster than might be expected given the nature of the slowgrowing UK chocolate market. Kraft has achieved company growth in the UK: For example, that in addition to any growth as a result of the Cadbury s take over, Kraft also saw greater growth in its cheese and biscuit UK sales For example, if Kraft had invested 11.7bn into its own portfolio, it may have grown the same amount or more through organic growth.

8 Question Number Question 5 Assess the impact on Kraft of the loss of senior Cadbury executives. (Evidence C) 12 marks Level Descriptor Possible content Knowledge/understanding that losing senior executives equates to a loss of human resource competitiveness Material presented is often irrelevant and lacks organisation. Frequent punctuation and/or grammar errors are likely to be present and the writing is generally unclear Application must be present, i.e. the answer must be contextualised and applied to show awareness of senior executives as part of human resources. Material is presented with some relevance but there are likely to be passages that lack proper organisation. Punctuation and/or grammar errors are likely to be present which affect clarity and coherence Analysis in context must be present, i.e. the candidate must Give reasons/causes/costs/consequences of the senior executives leaving the business. N.B. if analysis is not in context, limit to Level 2. Material is presented in a generally relevant and logical way but this may not be sustained throughout. For example, senior executives are a human resource, human resources refers to the people employed within an organisation For example, that senior executives leaving the business is an aspect of labour turnover For example, a business needs the right mix/balance of human resources For example, that senior Cadbury executives are a valuable part of its human resources, possessing valuable commercial knowledge such as the Head of Chocolates. For example, there could be a negative impact on Kraft because the knowledge of Cadbury s business, held by the existing senior executives, would be lost For example, senior Kraft executives may have business skills but not understand or want to understand the

9 Some punctuation and/or grammar errors may be found which cause some passages to lack clarity or coherence Low Level 4: 8-10 marks. Evaluation must be present i.e. a candidate balances their answer by showing possible advantages and disadvantages of the loss of senior Cadbury executives from Kraft. High Level 4: marks. Evaluation is developed to show a real perceptiveness on the part of the candidate. Several strands may be developed; the answer is clear and articulate, leading to a convincing conclusion. N.B. if evaluation not in context, limit to Level 3. Material is presented in a relevant and logical way. Some punctuation and/or grammar errors may be found but the writing has overall clarity and coherence. Cadbury culture For example, the loss of so many senior executives may result in bad publicity which could impact on sales. For example, Cadbury senior executives may be leaving because their own standards and business ethics may be compromised if they work within the Kraft culture. For example, senior executives may be forced out, as Kraft already has similar human resources within its business, and will not want to duplicate this resource, with all the associated costs For example, it could have a positive impact on Kraft/Cadbury s business because Kraft will have removed Cadbury s senior executives who may have a set way of running the business, and new blood could be introduced to replace the human resources which have left. For example, that Kraft will save the salaries of these names senior executives, which is likely to be substantial. For example, these may be no impact/minimal impact

10 because Kraft already has a strong corporate culture and way of running a successful business which will not be affected by the loss of Cadbury executives.

11 Section B: Essay questions Question Number Question 6 Evaluate Kraft s strategic decision to divide its business into two separate companies. 20 marks Level Descriptor Possible content Knowledge/understanding of what is meant by a strategic decision. Material presented is often irrelevant and lacks organisation. Frequent punctuation and/or grammar errors are likely to be present and the writing is generally unclear Application must be present, i.e. the answer must be contextualised and applied to Kraft and/or Mondelēz business. Low Level 2: 3 4 marks. Application is weak. High Level 2: 5 6 marks. Application to Mondelēz/Kraft/Cadbury s is clear. For example, a decision that will have a long term effect on the growth/direction of the organisation. For example, the different nature of the two businesses, one keeping its core market and the other concentrating on global brands For example, use of data from Evidence H For example, strength and value of brands Material is presented with some relevance but there are likely to be passages that lack proper organisation. Punctuation and/or grammar errors are likely to be present which affect clarity and coherence.

12 Level Descriptor Possible content Analysis in context must be present, i.e. the candidate must give reasons/causes/costs/consequences of splitting the business. Low Level 3: 7 9 marks. Analysis limited: only one or two reasons/causes/costs or consequences are outlined. High Level 3: marks. Analysis is more developed: two or more reasons/causes/costs and/or consequences are outlined and developed. N.B. if analysis is not in context, limit to Level 2. Material is presented in a generally relevant and logical way but this may not be sustained throughout. Some punctuation and/or grammar errors may be found which cause some passages to lack clarity or coherence. For example, that Mondelēz will be strong enough to be a powerful business in its own right as a result of the strength of Cadbury and Cadbury, Dairy Milk and the other billion dollar brands (Evidence F) For example, in financial terms, the Kraft takeover of Cadbury s meant that Mondelēz International would have sufficient assets to be a viable business that could compete globally. For example, that the takeover of Cadbury s will have contributed brands, customer loyalty, and technical know-how to enable Mondelēz International to become a global snacking powerhouse in its own right, a contribution that would have taken years to achieve through organic growth. For example, the takeover of Cadbury s will have given Kraft, and now Mondelēz, increased distribution in markets where Cadbury s was strong, enabling Mondelēz to use this distribution to sell other brands and product ranges.

13 Level Descriptor Possible content Evaluation must be present and in context, stating the extent to which the strategic decision to split their business was right or wrong, bringing some benefit or not, for Kraft Low Level 4: marks. Some evaluative points are made, based on analysis of the business situation without arriving at a conclusion/judgement. Mid Level 4: marks. A judgement is attempted with some effort to show how the strategic decision to split their business was right or wrong, for Kraft High Level 4: marks. Convincing evaluation on the extent to which the strategic decision to split their business was right or wrong, for Kraft Several strands may be developed; the answer is clear and articulate leading to a convincing conclusion. For example, efficiency and economies of scale may be lost because there may be duplication of centralised business functions which may add to the overheads of each business which could impact on overall profits. For example, they have less market power as they ve split the business, which may reduce their influence with suppliers, stockists and competitors. For example, as one large company across many markets, barriers to entry may be formed which may be harder to maintain by two separate smaller companies. For example, the takeover and division may not have been such a good idea as it would have created considerable turmoil and upheaval within the business and within the market, giving competitors an opportunity to take advantage of the situation. N.B. if evaluation not in context, limit to Level 3. Material is presented in a relevant and logical way. Some punctuation and/or grammar errors may be found but the writing has overall clarity and coherence.

14 Question Number Question 7 Assess the accuracy of the claim by Mondelēz that it has a unique competitive advantage. (Evidence F) 20 marks Level Descriptor Possible content Knowledge/understanding of what is meant by competitive advantage Material presented is often irrelevant and lacks organisation. Frequent punctuation and/or grammar errors are likely to be present and the writing is generally unclear Application must be present, i.e. the answer must be contextualised and applied to the Mondelēz example. Low Level 2: 3 4 marks. Candidate makes a basic comment on the portfolio of brands and/or the list of unique competitive advantages High Level 2: 5 6 marks. For example, a product offer which, by virtue of its price, quality, performance, etc. has demonstrable, or perceived, advantages/ improvements over its competitors For example, a claim of competitive advantage is a normal part of the promotion of a product and/or business when seeking to give buyers/consumers a reason to choose one product or business over another For example, the Mondelēz portfolio of brands has historical and cultural significance such as Dairy Milk and Oreos. For example, Mondelēz product portfolio covers a wide range of consumers and markets such as biscuits and chewing gum. Candidate makes a detailed reference to the portfolio of brands and/or the list of unique competitive advantages Material is presented with some relevance but there are likely to be passages that lack proper organisation. Punctuation and/or grammar errors are likely to be present which affect clarity and coherence.

15 Level Descriptor Possible content Analysis in context must be present, i.e. the candidate must give reasons/causes/costs/consequences of Mondelēz claiming to be a global snacking powerhouse, having nine brands, each of which has a sales value of a billion dollars, and/or the listed unique competitive advantages Low Level 3: 7-9 marks. Candidate will attempt a very basic analysis, making general points, on one or two elements from Evidence F. High Level 3: marks. Candidate makes a more detailed analysis, making specific points, on most of the elements from Evidence F. N.B. if analysis is not in context, limit to Level 2. Material is presented in a generally relevant and logical way but this may not be sustained throughout. Some punctuation and/or grammar errors may be found which cause some passages to lack clarity or coherence. For example, Mondelēz claim is accurate because its competitive advantage is unique as it is the only organisation to have the precise mix of products and brands listed. For example, the claim is accurate because the listed mix of products and brands may give Mondelēz a competitive advantage when seeking distribution, as no other business will be able to offer the brands that are within the Mondelēz portfolio, so if the distributors want these brands, they must deal with Mondelēz rather than a competitor. For example, it is accurate because from a consumer point-of-view, although the name Mondelēz may not be known, it will have a competitive advantage as a result of the high profile brands/brand image of products within the Mondelēz portfolio each worth $1bn. For example, Mondelēz is clearly a very large business, with net revenues of $35 billion, which means that its sheer size will give it a lot of power and influence in the market. For example, Mondelēz lists five strategies (Evidence G) which it believes will demonstrate

16 competitive advantage including its commitment to the environment and its people.

17 Level Descriptor Possible content Evaluation must be present and in context, based on Mondelēz claim to have a unique competitive advantage Low Level 4: marks. Some basic evaluative points are made, referring to its uniqueness and/or its wellknown brand names Mid Level 4: marks. Candidate gives a range of arguments, covering both its uniqueness and its well-known brand names High Level 4: marks. Candidate gives a wide range of arguments, to support its uniqueness, and the competitive advantage conferred by its brand names within the industry, and its brand names from a consumer point-of-view N.B. if evaluation is not in context, limit to Level 3 Material is presented in a relevant and logical way. Some punctuation and/or grammar errors may be found but the writing has overall clarity and coherence. For example, many other businesses that will be competitors also have unique brands such as Mars, Nestle. For example, being such a large company leaves them vulnerable to niche brands entering the market such as Hotel Chocolat. For example, Mondelēz see its staff as a key part of their competitive advantage but lost a number of highly skilled personnel when they took over Cadbury, these staff may now work for competing businesses. For example, the claim may not be accurate because the source of Evidence F is a fact sheet produced by the business itself, there is no objective comparison with its competitors.

18

19

20 All the material in this publication is copyright Pearson Education Limited 2014